Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 209 posts

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#61

Post by csense »

This is only possible because Apple has a "walled garden" app store and doesn't let people install stuff from outside it. The solution is simple: Publish an official jailbreak allowing expert iPhone users to root their phones and use third-party app stores.

Then Apple's not violating Chinese law by directly providing VPN's, instead they're removing themselves from a situation where they're in a position to be capable of enforcing Chinese law. The user is free to install whatever they want on a device they've bought.

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#62

Post by JumpCrisscross »

mcone wrote: post #54
IBM wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Imagine what would happened, for instance, if Apple hadn't pushed back against the FBI. Their customers would have been enraged, just as they are now. They absolutely would not have. HN-types might have, but many of them were also enraged about many of Apple's business practices over the years including their App Store policies, not being "open", etc. And it hasn't had any measurable impact on Apple's success as a b…

> They absolutely would not have. Perhaps not. But Apple absolutely benefited from the overwhelmingly positive press coverage it received as a result of their decision to oppose the FBI. And when the FBI withdrew their request, Apple looked like the winner. So yes, I do believe they opposed the FBI in that instance to strengthen their brand.

Practically all my non-technical friends required several conversations to understand why Apple did what it did in the San Bernardino case. On one side you have a company refusing to unlock a mass shooter's phone. On the other side you have an abstract discussion about rights and technology. Guess which one appeals to the broader denominator.

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#63

Post by differentView »

partisan wrote: post #34

The day after Apple stands up to the Chinese government, Foxconn will be producing phones that no longer have the Apple logo, but will otherwise be Apple iPhones. There is nothing Apple can do. In the name of profits, they have put their entire business in the hands of the Chinese government.

>The day after Apple stands up to the Chinese government, Foxconn will be producing phones that no longer have the Apple logo, but will otherwise be Apple iPhones.

That's just silly. Foxconn would do nothing of the sort.

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#64

Post by Clubber »

IBM wrote: post #6

I'll repost my comment from the other thread that got flagged for being a dupe: They absolutely stake out moral positions on issues like this all the time. The difference is they only do it in the West where rule of law prevails and they can actually exert influence. They've done it with various anti-LGBT efforts that have taken place around the US, they've done it with the fight with the FBI and they're doing it rig…

Yes, once a country obtains nuclear weapons, the options of influence are greatly reduced. You can no longer invade, you can no longer regime change, you might be able to install government antagonists, but that's about it. That's why all these non-nuclear countries want nuclear weapons.

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#65

Post by JumpCrisscross »

mc32 wrote: post #14
IBM wrote: post #6

I'll repost my comment from the other thread that got flagged for being a dupe: They absolutely stake out moral positions on issues like this all the time. The difference is they only do it in the West where rule of law prevails and they can actually exert influence. They've done it with various anti-LGBT efforts that have taken place around the US, they've done it with the fight with the FBI and they're doing it rig…

I wonder what Apple's reaction would be if China (or another large non-western market) demanded to have root on people's iphones. If Apple said, it's our HW design, it can't be compromised, I'm sure some market with enough heft could come back and say, make one specific to our market or you don't sell here. At that point they'd likely capitulate.

> At that point they'd likely capitulate

I'd guess they'd downgrade security on clearly-identifiable devices. And that's okay. We lost the moral high ground on mass surveillance many years ago.

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#66

Post by AnthonyMouse »

IBM wrote: post #51
mcone wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple isn't a vessel for anyone's foreign policy objectives and it isn't a substitute for the state. You're absolutely right, and you should follow this to its logical conclusion. Apple only does what's in its best interests. The company consistently acts to strengthen its brand whenever possible to make more money. It's irrational to expect a corporation, whether it's Apple or any other entity, to act ethically. E…

>Imagine what would happened, for instance, if Apple hadn't pushed back against the FBI. Their customers would have been enraged, just as they are now. They absolutely would not have. HN-types might have, but many of them were also enraged about many of Apple's business practices over the years including their App Store policies, not being "open", etc. And it hasn't had any measurable impact on Apple's success as a b…

> They absolutely would not have. HN-types might have, but many of them were also enraged about many of Apple's business practices over the years including their App Store policies, not being "open", etc. And it hasn't had any measurable impact on Apple's success as a business.

People are always saying things like this, but we never really have any good data on what the alternative would have been. Just because you're in the black doesn't mean you haven't lost billions of dollars in additional profits.

Apple had the first mover advantage with the iPhone. There is a fair argument that they would still have the bulk of the market if they had been more open, instead of conceding the majority share to Android.

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#67

Post by Clubber »

virtuabhi wrote: post #29
cbhl wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google and Facebook took this stance and look where it got us? China just made their own bloody search engine and social network. We need to stop looking to corporations as doing the jobs our government should be doing.

Let us keep passing the buck... We need to stop looking to governments as doing the jobs United Nations should be doing. "Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does."

That's a good point but China is 1 of 5 nations in the UN with veto power.

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#68

Post by thr1234 »

adventured wrote: post #23
justicezyx wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Chinese companies, however, have no such limitations, and will bend the rules all the time, often with minimal consequences. Do you mind point some examples?

Jack Ma stealing tens of billions of dollars from Softbank and Yahoo by giving himself a very large stake in Ant Financial (completely unsupported by his ownership % in Alibaba), divesting it out of Alibaba without proper compensation. Something like that is nearly unthinkable in the US or Western Europe. It would be equivalent to Jeff Bezos spinning off AWS and giving himself 2/3 ownership of it, without approval fr…

You aren't making a fair comparison here. You will never be able to make a 1-1 comparisons between individuals in two countries. Jeff Bezos and Jack Ma are different people and live in different countries; their actions are based on their environment.

The heart of your argument is that a corporation is executing a transaction that could possible be illegal elsewhere: the US or Western Europe is better because this would not be possible here.

If that is your argument, I can think of two examples off the top of my head:

1. Goldman Sachs executive in 1MDB scandal 2. Banks offloading their mortgage-back securities positions by selling the directly opposite positions to their clients

Corporations executing shady transactions in the US or Western Europe is not as uncommon or "unthinkable" as you might imagine. Your argument stems from a enthocentric point of view and romanticizing one system over another by neglecting all the bad from one side.

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#69

Post by geowwy »

_ptgt wrote: post #26
sriku wrote: post #12

Apple stood for privacy in the US where privacy is part of law. It didn't stand by privacy in China where privacy in some forms is prohibited as part of law. Asserting the US law in China would discount China's sovereignty, implicitly declaring "your principles are inferior to ours". A global company needs to be sensitive to these political/cultural differences and accommodate them. Even in the US where "privacy" is…

This amount of cultural relativism is silly and frankly just plain ignorant. China doesn't restrict free speech for cultural reasons. The CCP restricts free speech because it fears losing its ruling status.

>>> The CCP restricts free speech because it fears losing its ruling status.

They don't have any fear about that. The CCP is widely supported and deeply entrenched in Chinese society. This is just about preventing civil unrest/promoting a "harmonious society".

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#70

Post by Clubber »

rtpg wrote: post #56
taneq wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on your viewpoint, it's not even a problem. Telling China that their government is objectively wrong and should do things differently is pretty hypocritical unless we'd accept them telling us that our respective governments are wrong and should change.

It would be hypocritical to say someone is wrong while, on the same point, say someone else is right (despite the actions being the same). It's not hypocritical to say someone is wrong without mentioning all the other people are wrong. You can't list literally every bad thing that happens in every press release, and you can scope criticism.

It's hypocritical for the US to say China's government is wrong because the US government doesn't a lot of nasty things as well.
Post reply on HN